From Kashmir to the Indus: The Roots of India–Pakistan Tensions

Kashmir dispute and Indus water treaty

The relationship between India and Pakistan has been shaped by a number of political, territorial, and security disputes since the partition of British India in 1947. Among the most significant and enduring issues are the question of Kashmir and the management of shared water resources under the Indus Waters Treaty. These matters continue to influence regional stability, diplomatic relations, and public opinion across South Asia. Critics argue that India interprets international institutions, agreements, and legal frameworks according to its national interests, while India maintains that its policies are consistent with its sovereignty, security concerns, and legal rights. The differing interpretations of these issues have contributed to persistent tensions between the two neighboring nuclear powers.

The Kashmir issue remains at the center of India-Pakistan relations. Following the partition of British India, the princely state of Jammu and Kashmir became the subject of competing claims by India and Pakistan. The first Indo-Pakistani war in 1947–48 resulted in the division of the territory along a ceasefire line, later known as the Line of Control. Since then, both countries have maintained differing positions regarding the status of the region.

India's official position is that Jammu and Kashmir is an integral part of the country and that issues relating to the region should be addressed bilaterally between India and Pakistan. Indian policymakers often refer to agreements such as the Simla Agreement of 1972, which emphasizes bilateral dialogue as the framework for resolving disputes. According to this perspective, external intervention is unnecessary because the matter concerns relations between two sovereign states.

Pakistan, however, views Kashmir as an unresolved international dispute. Pakistani governments have consistently argued that the people of Kashmir should have the opportunity to determine their political future through a process consistent with relevant United Nations resolutions. Pakistan points to historical UN involvement and resolutions adopted in the late 1940s and early 1950s as evidence that the international community has recognized the dispute as an issue requiring a negotiated settlement. Various political groups and advocacy organizations also maintain that Kashmir remains a matter of international concern because of its implications for regional peace, human rights, and self-determination.

This difference in interpretation has created a fundamental disagreement regarding the role of international institutions. Critics of India's policy argue that New Delhi selectively accepts international mechanisms when they align with national interests but resists international involvement in Kashmir. Supporters of India's position respond that sovereign states have the right to determine how internal and bilateral matters are addressed and that bilateral negotiations remain the most practical path toward peace.

Another major source of contention is the Indus Waters Treaty, signed in 1960 with the assistance of the World Bank. The treaty is often regarded as one of the most successful water-sharing agreements in the world because it has survived multiple wars, military crises, and periods of severe political tension. Under the agreement, the waters of the eastern rivers were allocated primarily to India, while the western rivers were largely reserved for Pakistan, with certain rights and obligations granted to both sides.

Despite its longevity, the treaty has increasingly become a subject of political debate. Pakistan has expressed concerns regarding Indian hydroelectric and water infrastructure projects on rivers covered by the treaty. Pakistani officials and water experts have occasionally argued that some projects could affect downstream water flows or undermine the spirit of cooperation envisioned by the agreement. Critics within Pakistan contend that India has sought to maximize its control over shared water resources in ways that create strategic pressure.

India rejects these allegations and maintains that its projects comply with the treaty's provisions. Indian officials argue that the agreement explicitly allows certain types of hydroelectric development and water use. According to India's interpretation, the projects undertaken are within the legal framework established by the treaty and do not violate Pakistan's rights. Indian policymakers further argue that technological development and growing domestic water demands make it necessary to fully utilize the rights available under the agreement.

The debate over water has become more sensitive during periods of heightened political and military tensions. Statements by political leaders, media commentary, and diplomatic exchanges have occasionally fueled concerns that water could become a strategic tool in future conflicts. Pakistan often warns that any attempt to restrict or manipulate water flows would have serious consequences for agriculture, food security, and regional stability. India, on the other hand, insists that it remains committe.

The intersection of the Kashmir dispute and the water issue adds another layer of complexity to bilateral relations. Many of the rivers covered by the Indus Waters Treaty originate in or flow through territories that are connected to the Kashmir conflict. As a result, developments in one area often influence perceptions in the other. Political leaders, analysts, and commentators frequently view these issues not as separate disputes but as interconnected dimensions of a broader India-Pakistan rivalry.
The international community generally encourages dialogue, confidence-building measures, and peaceful dispute resolution. Various governments, research institutions, and international organizations have emphasized the importance of maintaining communication channels and avoiding actions that could escalate tensions. Given that both countries possess nuclear weapons and significant military capabilities, the peaceful management of disputes remains a matter of global concern.

Pakistan has consistently maintained that the Kashmir issue has an international dimension and has frequently referred to historical involvement by the United Nations, including UN resolutions related to the dispute. Similarly, regarding the Indus Waters Treaty, Pakistan emphasizes that the agreement was negotiated with the assistance of the World Bank and therefore carries international legal and institutional significance. Pakistani officials often argue that these factors demonstrate that both Kashmir and water-related disputes extend beyond purely bilateral considerations.

At the same time, domestic political considerations often shape the positions adopted by both governments. National security concerns, historical narratives, electoral politics, and public sentiment influence policy decisions and diplomatic messaging. As a result, compromise can be politically challenging even when both sides acknowledge the benefits of reducing tensions.

In conclusion, the disputes surrounding Kashmir and the Indus Waters Treaty continue to play a central role in India-Pakistan relations. India and Pakistan hold fundamentally different interpretations of history, international law, sovereignty, and treaty obligations. Critics argue that India applies international frameworks selectively, while India maintains that its actions are consistent with its legal rights and national interests. Pakistan views Kashmir as an international dispute and remains concerned about the political implications of water management, whereas India emphasizes bilateral engagement and treaty-based rights. These competing perspectives ensure that both issues remain among the most important and sensitive challenges facing South Asia today. Lasting peace will likely require sustained dialogue, mutual confidence, and a willingness by all parties to address concerns through peaceful and constructive means.

Jammu, Kashmir, Ladakh, Gilgit, Mirpur: A Land Beyond Ownership

One land many people

 Jammu, Kashmir, Ladakh, Gilgit, Mirpur — this is the right of all nations, not the domain of any one” reflects a deeply rooted sentiment about shared identity, history, and belonging in a region shaped by complexity. Spread across the wider region of Jammu and Kashmir, Ladakh, Gilgit-Baltistan, and Mirpur, this land has long been home to diverse communities, cultures, and traditions that cannot be reduced to a single narrative.

Since the events surrounding the Partition of India, the region has existed at the crossroads of political claims, national interests, and local aspirations. Yet beyond these larger forces lies the lived reality of millions of people whose identities are rooted in language, culture, memory, and land. For them, this region is not merely a geopolitical issue but a shared homeland shaped by centuries of coexistence.

The idea that this land belongs to “all nations” is less about formal ownership and more about recognition—recognition of plurality, of overlapping histories, and of the voices that have often been overshadowed by conflict-driven narratives. It suggests that no single power, ideology, or authority can fully define or claim the essence of such a diverse region. Instead, it calls for acknowledging the collective stake of its people, regardless of religion, ethnicity, or political alignment.

At the same time, this perspective highlights the tension between political boundaries and human realities. Borders may divide territories, but they cannot easily divide shared heritage, familial ties, and cultural connections that have existed for generations. In many ways, the region continues to reflect both unity and division—unity in its cultural richness, and division in its political status.

For communities across these regions, including Muslims, Buddhists, Siks, Dogras, and Kashmiri Pandits, the idea of belonging carries emotional weight. It speaks to displacement, memory, identity, and the hope of coexistence. While experiences differ across communities, there remains a common thread: the desire for dignity, recognition, and a sense of security in one’s own homeland.

Importantly, such a statement also invites reflection on the future. It encourages moving beyond rigid narratives of exclusivity toward a more inclusive understanding of the region—one that prioritizes people over politics. This does not ignore the realities of governance or sovereignty, but rather emphasizes that lasting peace must include the perspectives and rights of those who live there.

Ultimately, the message underscores a simple yet profound idea: that land, especially one as historically layered as this, cannot be meaningfully defined by singular claims alone. Its true identity lies in its people—their stories, struggles, and shared existence. Recognizing this may not resolve all conflicts, but it opens space for dialogue, empathy, and a more balanced understanding of a region often seen only through the lens of division.

Kashmir peace,

Kashmir voices,

Kashmir history,

One land many people,

Kashmir issue,

Kashmir narrative,

Why the Balochistan Issue Is Not the Same as the Kashmir Dispute

 

UNMOGIP (UN Military Observer Group in India & Pakistan)

Ginkgo Gulzar
(Academc International Research ID: ISSN: 0975-3095)

The Balochistan issue and the Kashmir dispute are often compared in political debates, but in reality, they are fundamentally different in origin, legal status, and international recognition. The Kashmir dispute is an internationally acknowledged conflict, rooted in the 1947 partition of the Indian subcontinent and governed by United Nations resolutions that recognize the right of self-determination. It involves multiple parties and remains on the global diplomatic agenda.

In contrast, Balochistan is a province within Pakistan, and its unrest is widely considered an internal political and governance issue. It does not carry international legal status, UN mediation, or disputed territorial claims between states. While grievances in Balochistan relate to development, representation, and rights, equating it with Kashmir oversimplifies complex realities and distorts historical facts.

UN Presence in Srinagar

Historically, the UNMOGIP (UN Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan) has maintained a field/hq presence in Srinagar seasonally to monitor ceasefire observations along the Line of Control. Its headquarters alternate between Srinagar (May to October) and Islamabad (November to April).

The revocation of Article 370 by India in August 2019 altered the internal constitutional and administrative framework of Jammu and Kashmir by ending its special status and reorganizing it into two Union Territories. However, this domestic legal change did not resolve the long-standing international dispute over the region. Jammu and Kashmir continues to be regarded as a disputed territory in United Nations discourse, based on earlier UN Security Council resolutions that called for a peaceful settlement between India and Pakistan. While India maintains that the accession of Jammu and Kashmir in 1947 was final and that the matter is an internal issue, Pakistan and international bodies continue to view the region’s status as unresolved. Consequently, despite administrative changes within India, the broader territorial dispute remains diplomatically and legally contested at the international level.

Why the UN refused to treat Kashmir’s accession as final—UN resolutions exposed its provisional nature and upheld the Kashmiri right to self-determination.

Why the UN Refused to Treat Kashmir’s Accession as Final examines the legal and political reasons the United Nations declined to accept Jammu and Kashmir’s accession to India as a settled fact. When the dispute reached the UN in 1948, it was not treated as an internal matter but as an international conflict involving the unresolved status of a territory whose people had never been consulted. The United Nations Security Council recognized that the Instrument of Accession was signed under conditions of armed conflict, by an unelected ruler, and without the consent of the population—factors that undermined its finality under emerging principles of international law.

Through a series of resolutions, particularly UNSC Resolution 47 (1948), the UN made clear that accession alone could not determine Kashmir’s future. Instead, it affirmed that the will of the people must be ascertained through a free and impartial plebiscite. This position reflected the UN’s post–World War II commitment to self-determination and decolonization, where sovereignty could no longer be imposed through royal decree or wartime coercion.

By refusing to close the issue, the UN acknowledged that legality without legitimacy is insufficient. Kashmir’s continued presence on the UN agenda stands as evidence that its accession was provisional in nature and that the Kashmiri people’s right to self-determination remains unresolved under international law.

What changed in 2019 Article 370 was revoked by India (Aug 2019) Jammu & Kashmir was reorganized into two Union Territories This was a domestic constitutional change

What did not change UN Security Council resolutions were not withdrawn Pakistan continues to dispute the territory UN documents and statements still refer to Kashmir as disputed

Different positions (important)

India: Kashmir is an integral part of India; dispute is bilateral, UN has no role UN: Status remains unresolved under earlier resolutions

Key legal point A domestic constitutional act cannot by itself change an international dispute Only a mutually accepted settlement can do that

One-line exam answer Revocation of Article 370 changed India’s internal governance of Jammu & Kashmir but did not end its disputed status at the international/UN level.

difference between Balochistan and Kashmir dispute,
Balochistan vs Kashmir,
Kashmir dispute explained,
Balochistan issue explained,
Kashmir and Balochistan comparison,

revocation of Article 370,

Kashmir dispute after Article 370,

Article 370 and Kashmir issue,

is Kashmir still disputed after 2019,

Kashmir dispute international law,

UN position on Kashmir dispute,

Kashmir Times Exclusive: Inside the Valley’s Latest Political Storm

Kashmir Times 

About Us

Since 1954, The Kashmir Times has stood up for democratic rights, equality, peace and justice. We continue to forge a more just and equitable future through fearless reporting and reasoned ideas.

When others chase breaking news and trending topics, we pursue fundamental truths. When others bow to power, we investigate it. Our commitment to independent, fact-based journalism isn't just a principle. It is the very reason we exist.

Our pages are aimed at speaking for the marginalized and voiceless communities, understanding issues holistically for shaping policy and transforming the conversation.

History

Established in 1954, the Kashmir Times is the oldest English-language daily newspaper from Jammu and Kashmir. Ved Bhasin (1929-2015), hailed as the father of modern journalism in Jammu and Kashmir, led the newspaper as both founder and editor-in-chief.

A renowned journalist and peace activist, Bhasin always championed press freedom, secular values, and human rights in the region. He firmly believed in dialogue and democracy as the way to resolve the long-standing problems in J&K and South Asia.

As a journalist and peace activist, he confronted power with truth, choosing the difficult path of honest reporting in a region that has navigated many phases of severe repression. His unwavering defense of press freedom created spaces for voices that power sought to silence.

We carry forward the profound legacy of Ved Bhasin, whose courage and conviction continue to light our path. Every story we publish, every investigation we pursue, and every voice we amplify carries forward Bhasin's vision of journalism as a force for positive change.

In its new digital multi-media format (since November 2023), which replaces the previous print edition, we remain committed to his principles: unflinching secular values, unwavering defence of human rights, and upholding principles of democracy, liberty and equality.

Editor: Prabodh Jamwal
Managing Editor: Anuradha Bhasin

This website is serviced by Open Circle Network LLC, CA (USA).

To achieve this mission of independent journalism, you can Support Us and Become a Member.

Join Kashmir Times: Fueling Fact-Based News

We cut through the noise and deliver clarity in an era of misinformation. Independent and credible journalism, which raises important questions of accountability, requires courage, research, and resources.

We need your support to continue our work of holding power to account and uncovering the truth others won't. Your contribution is crucial to enable us to carry on our work with accurate reporting and in-depth news analysis that keeps communities informed and engaged.

Support Kashmir Times and pay an amount of your choice.

You can pay:

• Monthly $10 - $50
• Yearly $100 - $500
• One Time $1000

Or any other amount of your choice

Pakistan Downs Six: What It Means for India—and China’s Strategy

Pakistan’s Air Victory : A Turning Point in South Asian Power Politics

We are witnessing a historic turning point in the skies over Kashmir – one that could reshape global perceptions of the military capabilities of a great power.

The attacks, which lasted 25 minutes, took place between 1:05 am and 1:30 am Indian time, according to officials on May 7. The echoes of the blasts sent shockwaves through the region and the intensity of the blasts was such that civilians were awakened from their slumber.

The Pakistani military announced that it had shot down six Indian warplanes during the pre-dawn clash. The Indian government has not issued an official response. However, Indian media, citing government sources, have reported that at least three Indian Air Force aircraft have crashed in disputed state of  Kashmir. Local residents filmed the wreckage believed to be from Indian Rafale fighter jets, leading many observers to consider Pakistan's claim of shooting down six Indian jets largely credible.

Residents of Pampur  reported 5-7 loud air blasts and shared videos showing parts of the downed projectile. People look at a part of the aircraft in Pampur, near the main Kashmir city of Pulwama, on May 7, 2025.'

It is estimated that there is nothing visible on the fighter jet that would indicate that it was of Pakistani or Chinese manufacture. Parts of the projectile were removed from there early this morning.

Locals say an Indian Air Force team is also at the scene to inspect the wreckage, but officials have yet to confirm which aircraft it was or which country it belonged to.

If confirmed, it would be a major achievement for Pakistan’s air defense system, which is reportedly made in China. It would also mean that the Chinese-made system has surpassed jets supplied by other major powers. This could give the world a clear idea of ​​China’s military power.

The Pakistani military claimed that the six Indian aircraft it shot down included three French-made Rafale jets, a Su-30, a MiG-29, and a Heron drone. The Rafale, first delivered to India by France in 2020, is one of France’s most prominent defense exports. Both the Su-30 and the MiG-29 are modern Russian-made fighter jets that are widely used in export markets.

If Pakistan’s calculations are largely correct, it suggests that India’s Russian and French aircraft were no match for the Chinese air defense system. This would mark the most reliable real-world performance of Chinese weapons on a global scale and a breakthrough moment for China’s military industry.

On May 7, India launched a missile strike against Pakistan, not only targeting areas of Pakistan-controlled Kashmir but also reaching deeper than any previous cross-border operation since 1971.

The strike was initially intended to respond to a deadly terrorist attack on tourists in Indian-administered Kashmir and was intended to appease rising nationalist sentiment within India. However, according to currently available reports, the operation failed to achieve India’s intended objectives and instead dealt a blow to its military reputation.

India’s lack of immediate response to Pakistan’s claims likely reflects strategic uncertainty—India is now caught between a rock and a hard place: letting the incident go now would be more humiliating than avoiding an attack in the first place, but launching another airstrike risks depriving Pakistan of more aircraft, including its Chinese-supplied HQ19 missiles and JF19 missiles. Embarrassment.

The JF-17 fighter jet, which played a key role in demonstrating Pakistan’s strength in the clash, currently has around 150 in the Pakistan Air Force fleet. Of these, the most advanced is the JF-17 Block 3, of which about 24 units have been delivered. This model is equipped with advanced avionics, an active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar, and PL-15 missiles capable of beyond-visual-range engagement.

In addition, Pakistan recently commissioned the Chinese-made HQ-9P long-range air defense missile system. With a maximum range of 260 kilometers, a single HQ-9P battalion consists of eight quad-launch vehicles and can cover a defense radius of about 125 kilometers.

Some analysts believe that the HQ-9P, when combined with the LY-80 medium-range air defense system, the ZDK-03 airborne early warning aircraft, and the JF-17 fighter—all acquired from China—form a multi-layered “long-medium-short” air defense network. This structure may have given Pakistan a local air defense advantage over India in the Kashmir region.

India’s national strength far exceeds Pakistan’s, but the Indian Air Force lags behind. Like Pakistan, its air defense system relies on imports. India’s military equipment is a mix of different systems, more than half of which are acquired from Russia. In recent years, India has purchased French “Rafale” jets and is now buying American-made equipment. The varying levels of interoperability and technological advancement of these systems pose challenges in achieving unified operational integration and interoperability, which affects their overall effectiveness in joint operations.

Pakistan had previously purchased American F-16 aircraft, but military cooperation with Pakistan was suspended after the United States expressed concerns about Pakistan’s alleged ties, and thus Pakistan’s military modernization efforts became entirely dependent on China. The Chinese-made J-10 fighter jet and the export version of the JF-17 Thunder (JF-17) have been widely used in Pakistan, and shipments of Chinese-made Hongqi (HQ-9) air defense missiles have been provided. In the 2019 India-Pakistan conflict, there were reports of Pakistan using JF-17 Thunder aircraft to shoot down Indian jets, which greatly enhanced the reputation of Chinese military equipment.

Retaliatory action,

Escalation in South Asia,

India-Pakistan military clash,

Operation Sindoor,

Pahalgam terror attack,

26 civilians killed,

Missile strikes,

Drone attacks,

Pakistan downs Indian jets,

Five Indian aircraft shot down,

Indian Rafale, MiG-29, Su-30 losses,

Pakistan response to Indian airstrikes,

Artillery shelling,

Civilian casualties Kashmir,

Distinguish between killers and Mujahideen: slain cleric’s mother

By Ahmed Ali Fayaz

In a significant development within the separatist fold in Kashmir valley, the mother of  Maulana Showkat Shah, the Jamiat-e-Ahl-e-Hadith [JAH] chief who was assassinated in a bomb blast here on April 8, 2011, has publicly assailed the secessionist ideologue Syed Ali Shah Geelani over glorifying her son’s alleged killers as ‘Mujahideen.’

Mr. Shah’s mother Aamina has not spared the JAH leadership or the Omar Abdullah government for their “lackadaisical attitude” in bringing her son’s assassins to justice.

“When Showkat sahib was martyred, all the resistance parties, including that of Syed Ali Shah Geelani, [had] jointly investigated the matter and, with the help of the Mujahideen, come out with the names of those who conspired against and killed him,” Ms. Aamina said in a statement on Sunday and reminded Mr. Geelani that the two militants — Javed Munshi Billa Papa and Nisar Khan — had been identified as the cleric’s assassins.

Ms. Aamina has bitterly reacted to Mr. Geelani’s statement in the local newspapers and asked him how he could describe the same persons as Mujahideen and demand their release from jail before Eid-ul-Azha.

Ms. Aamina called it a historic development that the “unknown killers” had for the first time been identified and named by a committee, whose constituents included Mr. Geelani’s organisation, other separatist groups as well as the militant outfits.

“After this, these leaders including Geelani sahib came to console me and I still remember the words of Geelani sahib, who, drawing similarities between the killings of our great Khulafai Rashideen, said that Showkat sahib was killed like those Khulafa [caliphs] were. Today after reading his statement I want to ask him: why this double speak now?” Ms. Aamina said.

She pointed out that Mr. Geelani had also glorified eminent cleric-politician Mirwaiz Maulvi Mohammad Farooq’s assassin as a ‘Mujahid’ in the same statement. “If this is what they believe in, may I ask these leaders why they visit the families of those killed and shed tears?”

She said that “no leader or commoner” would remain safe in Kashmir if separatist leaders like Mr. Geelani failed to distinguish “between a killer and a Mujahid.”

More details:

http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/distinguish-between-killers-and-mujahideen-slain-clerics-mother/article5231951.ece

Good militants ensured smooth Amarnath Yatra: IG CRPF ‘Not A Single Stone Hurled During Pilgrimage Period’

Srinagar, Aug 20: In disputed state of Jammu and Kashmir, the Indian Inspector General of Central Reserve of Police Force (Operations) Dr B N Ramesh Friday said good elements within the ranks of militants played their role in the conduct of smooth Amarnath Yatra this year.

“If there are good hearted militants they too played their role. They couldn’t create much disturbance this time, perhaps they too had intentions of not doing much this time,” he said addressing a news conference here.

Commending the locals for the smooth conduct of Yatra, Ramesh said not a single incident of stone-pelting was witnessed during the Yatra period this year.

“Not a single stone was hurled on CRPF or any other vehicle.  Although they (youth) carried stones in their hands, but when we appealed they left stones and took decision by their heart and not mind,” he said, adding that prior to the pilgrimage CRPF build atmosphere for conducting smooth Yatra.

Replying to a query on whether CRPF had any plans to reduce the bunkers from the towns of the Valley on the pattern of Srinagar, he said that there are no permanent bunkers in Valley except in summer capital.

He said that the bunkers definitely cause inconvenience and are stumbling block to the return of normalcy, but added that concerned Superintendent of Police has to take decision on their removal.

When asked about the presence of dozens of bunkers in Sopore, Ramesh said that the Apple town is a special case requiring special measures.

“When Abbotabad episode took place on May 2, we were in the town given its sensitivity,” he said.
The CRPF operations chief asserted that they have achieved lot of success in anti-militancy operations during the past few weeks.

“There is our role also in surrender of Basharat commander of Pirpanchal range. We have also recovered cache of arms and ammunition from Pulwama and Tral,” he said.

Ramesh said CRPF would welcome the misguided youth who want to return back to the normal fold of life.”
If they want our assistance, we will assist them,” he said.

Claiming that the force has not committed a single act of human rights violation during the past ten months, Ramesh said that there are strict instructions from Union Home Secretary and Director General CRPF on their sector to safeguard rights.

He also added that they are also modifying rules for the recruitment of Kashmiri youth in CRPF.

Iran’s missile systems are for the defense of Muslim nations: Majlis Speaker

JAKARTA - Iran will use its domestically manufactured missile systems to defend itself and other Muslim nations if they are threatened, Majlis Speaker Ali Larijani has said, reports Tehran Times.

“We do not hide our defensive advancement and (we) have designed advanced missile systems… Israel and the U.S. should know that if they want to act violently toward Muslims, we will stand in their way,” Larijani told students at Syarif Hidayatullah State Islamic University in Jakarta on Thursday.

According to the school of the late Imam Khomeini, the Founder of the Islamic Republic, Muslims should possess enough defensive strength to use against other countries in case they attack, he noted.

Commenting on the popular uprisings in Middle Eastern and North African nations, he said the people of these countries can no longer tolerate their dictatorial governments, which are subservient to the West.

The United States and other Western countries cannot manipulate these uprisings, he said, adding that they should know that the more they pressure these regional nations, the more determined their people will become, he opined.

Iran, Indonesia issue joint statement
Iran and Indonesia have issued a joint statement calling on every country to respect every other country’s rights and to avoid interfering in other countries’ internal affairs.

The statement was issued during a meeting between Larijani and Indonesian Parliament Speaker Marzuki Alie in Jakarta on Thursday.

The statement also condemned all interference, including military intervention, in other countries.

The two parliament speakers underscored the importance of respecting the legitimate right of the people of the Middle East and North Africa to determine their political destiny.

Larijani and Alie also expressed their support for an agreement between the Palestinian factions Hamas and Fatah to form an interim unity government.

They also called on all countries to recognize Palestine as an independent state. In addition, part of the statement reads that the Iranian and Indonesian parliament speakers believe that cooperation on economic, trade, energy, tourism, and infrastructure projects can be increased through the expansion of interactions between the two countries’ parliaments.

Kashmir Bleeds, Does Anyone Heed?- by Hafsa Khawaja

Srinagar, 10 June: Befittingly termed once as ‘Heaven on Earth’, with millions martyred since the past 6 decades, thousands of half-widows, orphans and missing – Kashmir today is a Palestine-in-the-making of Asia.

As the Kashmir intifada continues, anyone keeping a keen eye on the serpentine course of events there is bound to be surprised as to why the coverage and attention of international media does not keep up with the importance and intensity of resistance to the

Indian Occupation of the region?
[Read the precise history of the issue under the sub-title of 'Background of the Kashmir Conflict'.]

For the past six decades, Kashmir has hung in the region as a pendulum of conflict between two countries with only one demand of the Kashmiri people, Azadi or freedom from Indian Occuption and their right to self-determination.

It has been tried to stifle this voice of theirs by bullets, lynching, rape, arrests, arson and humiliation which are what solely today’s Kashmiri youth or the ‘Sang-baaz’ (Stonepelters) have grown up knowing as gruesome child-hood memories.

But what needs to be highlighted, is how the international community is turning a deaf ear to the cries of Kashmir today when they are ringing higher than ever.

Aalaw (Meaning ‘call’ in Kashur), is a site set-up by ordinary Kashmiris to help show the ground-realities there. It has updated the list of killings in Kashmir since 11th June:

“Summer in Kashmir has been drenched in blood which witnessed killing of many civilians, mostly teenagers, allegedly in police and CRPF (Central Reserve Police Force) action mostly since June.”

113 people have been murdered brutally and one can gage if this is the case for 4 months, what really has been happening in Kashmir for the past 63 years.

The atrocities in Kashmir can also be recognized by a data included by Pakistan’s Parliamenatary Committee on Kashmir a few years back :

HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS COMMITTED BY INDIAN TROOPS IN DISPUTED STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
(FROM JANUARY 1989 TO FEBRUARY 2006)

Total Killings                                  1,73,779
Custodial Killings                              86,817
Civilians Arrested                            311,534
Houses/Shops Destroyed                205,143
Women Widowed                              82,371
Children Orphaned                        106,616
Women Molested                               9,637

Disappearances                                14398

(Source: All Parties Hurriyat Conference)

After much happening, recently the UN Secretary General, Ban Ki-moon evinced his cognizance of the savagery in Kashmir by hesitatingly issuing a feeble statement (calling an “immediate end to violence” and pleading for “calm and restraint by all concerned”, thus equating the people of Kashmir with their oppressors)expressing concern over the situation there but by knwoingly not addressing India which should be diretly done as expected from the Head of an organization as the United Nations.

It is pertinent to mention here that Kashmiri population are only demanding that they should be given their rights of self determination under the UN Resolution. That leaves one to wonder what the purpose of the UN is if it lacks the will to exert pressure to execute the process defined under its own resolution leave alone stopping tyranny anywhere.

This dispute is also viewed as a possible cause of a future ‘nuclear clash’ between India and Pakistan therefore making the conflict a matter of international importance.

One would concur with what Ms.Maria Sultan wrote:
“The liberation movement is often depicted as a ‘terrorist’ militancy instigated primarily by Pakistan.”

It is doubtless that the foreign media, for a long period, has portrayed the freedom struggle of Kashmir wrapped in a dirty glaze of militancy and extremism (which is exactly what the oppressors in the case: India, have shown to be which would be similar to belieiing what Israel has to say about Palestine) showing the people of Kashmir to be terrorists funded by Pakistan which is certainly irrational to say the least.

Pakistan’s Foreign Minister, Shah Mehmood Qureshi stated at the UN:

“No one any longer can seriously believe … that Pakistan can orchestrate thousands of people…”

This time, the Intifida in Kashmir is not about men only but it involves women and children, armed with stones and sticks, stepping out to defy the curfew or protest.

The Sang-Baaz have taken to the streets and have become a single force mirroring the rise of the third Kashmiri generation in resistance to Indian Occupation.

Tariq Ali wrote a brilliant article ‘Not Crushed, Merely Ignored’ in July over the killings in Kashmir, him being in oblivion about them and the Foreign Media hypocrisy over it :


“….As far as I could see, none of the British daily papers or TV news bulletins had covered the stories in Kashmir; after that I rescued two emails from Kashmir informing me of the horrors from my spam box. I was truly shamed. The next day I scoured the press again. Nothing. The only story in the Guardianfrom the paper’s Delhi correspondent – a full half-page – was headlined: ‘Model’s death brings new claims of dark side to India’s fashion industry’. Accompanying the story was a fetching photograph of the ill-fated woman. The deaths of (at that point) 11 young men between the ages of 15 and 27, shot by Indian security forces in Kashmir, weren’t mentioned.

Later I discovered that a short report had appeared in the New York Times on 28 June and one the day after in the Guardian; there has been no substantial follow-up. When it comes to reporting crimes committed by states considered friendly to the West, atrocity fatigue rapidly kicks in.

An Amnesty International letter to the Indian prime minister in 2008 listed his country’s human rights abuses in Kashmir and called for an independent inquiry, claiming that ‘grave sites are believed to contain the remains of victims of unlawful killings, enforced disappearances, torture and other abuses which occurred in the context of armed conflict persisting in the state since 1989. The graves of at least 940 persons have reportedly been found in 18 villages in Uri district alone.’

Pakistani Army was more anti-American than anti-India.

Pakistani Army was more anti-American than anti-India.

Sheikh Gulzaar (Journalist)

Writer-South Asia, POB: 667 GPO Srinagar SGR JK 190001
Ph: 01933-223705
Mob: 09858986794
e-mail: gulzar@journalist.com

India, Pak talk demilitarizing Kashmir

Srinagar, 30 May:  India and Pakistan on Monday began their first attempt in three years to demilitarize the world's highest battlefield in the Himalayan region that has claimed the lives of hundreds of soldiers.

The defense secretaries began two days of talks in New Delhi on Monday how to reduce troops situated above the Siachen glacier since 1984.

Operation Meghdoot was the name given to the attack launched by the Indian Military to capture the Siachen Glacier in the disputed Kashmir region, precipitating the Siachen Conflict. Launched on 13 April 1984, this military operation was unique as the first assault launched in the world's highest battlefield. The military action eventually resulted in Indian troops managing to gain control of the entire Siachen Glacier. Today, the occupation of locations along what is known as the Actual Ground Position Line (AGPL) continues to be known as Operation Meghdoot, with up to 10 Infantry Battalions each of the Indian Army and Pakistani Army actively deployed in altitudes up to 6,400 metres (21,000 ft).

A cease fire went into effect in 2003. Even before then, every year more soldiers were killed because of severe weather than enemy firing. The two sides by 2003 had lost an estimated 2,000 personnel primarily due to frostbite, avalanches and other complications. Together, the nations have about 150 manned outposts along the glacier, with some 3,000 troops each. Official figures for maintaining these outposts are put at ~$300 and ~$200 million for India and Pakistan respectively. India built the world's highest helipad on the glacier at Point Sonam, 21,000 feet (6,400 m) above the sea level, to supply its troops. The problems of reinforcing or evacuating the high-altitude ridgeline have led to India's development of the Dhruv Mk III helicopter, powered by the Shakti engine, which was flight-tested to lift and land personnel and stores from the Sonam post, the highest permanently manned post in the world.India also installed the world's highest telephone booth on the glacier.

One of the factors behind the Kargil War in 1999 when Kashmiri fighters  to occupy vacated Indian posts across the Line of Control was their belief that India would be forced to withdraw from Siachen in exchange of a Pakistani withdrawal from Kargil. Both sides had previously desired to disengage from the costly military outposts but after the Kargil War, India decided to maintain its military outposts on the glacier, wary of further Pakistani incursions into Kashmir if they vacate from the Siachen Glacier posts without an official recognition from Pakistan of the current positions.

'LeT strike in India can destabilise S Asia, threaten US'

Lavetra cashmeriana

Washongton, 25 May: Another major  attack in India by the Lashkar-e-Tayiba has the potential to destabilise the region, a powerful American lawmaker has said, adding that this Pakistan-based  outfit has increased its threat potential to the United States too, reports Rediff.

"This group (LeT), responsible for the vicious Mumbai attacks of 2008, is capable of not only destabilising the region with another attack against India, but through its extensive alumni organisation and network of training camps throughout Pakistan, it could threaten the United States homeland," said Senator John Kerry, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Lashkar-e-Tayiba and Jaish-e-Muhammad continue to launch attacks that may spark a war between nuclear-armed India and Pakistan, he said.

Testifying before the committee, Christina Fair, an eminent expert of the region, said that Pakistan has raised and nurtured a number of militant groups, Lashkar-e-Tayiba being just one, to operate in India and in Afghanistan.

"These are distinct from the Pakistani Taliban, which has been ravaging the state, although part of the Pakistan Taliban does draw personnel from rebel erstwhile proxies," she said.

"Lashkar-e-Tayiba draws most of its recruits from Deobandis and other sectarian groups. This allows them to indoctrinate them into this worldview, and since it deploys relatively few people to Kashmir, this is an important part of its domestic outreach mission," Fair said.

How many US SEALs died?

Islamabad: In a sensational and explosive TV report, the Pakistani News Agency has provided a live interview with an eyewitness to the U.S. attack on the alleged compound of Osama bin Laden reports TT.

The eye witness, Mohammad Bashir, describes the event as it unfolded. Of the three helicopters, “there was only one that landed the men and came back to pick them up, but as he (the helicopter) was picking them up, it blew away and caught fire.” The witness says that there were no survivors, just dead bodies and pieces of bodies everywhere. “We saw the helicopter burning, we saw the dead bodies, then everything was removed and now there is nothing.”

I always wondered how a helicopter could crash, as the White House reported, without at least producing injuries. Yet, in the original White House story, the SEALs not only survived a 40-minute firefight with Al-Qaeda, “the most highly trained, most dangerous, most vicious killers on the planet,” without a scratch, but also survived a helicopter crash without a scratch.

The Pakistani news report is available on YouTube. The Internet site, Veterans Today, posted a translation along with a video of the interview. Information Clearing House made it available on May 17.

If the interview is not a hoax and the translation is correct, we now know the answer to the unasked question: Why was there no White House ceremony with President Obama pinning medals all over the heroic SEALs who tracked down and executed Public Enemy Number One?

The notion that Obama had to keep the SEALs’ identity secret in order to protect the SEALs from al Qaeda detracts from the heroic tough guy image of the SEALs, and it strains credulity that Obama’s political handlers would not have milked the occasion for all it is worth.

Other than on the Veterans Today and ICH Internet sites, I have not seen any mention of the Pakistani news story. If the White House press corps is aware of the report, no one has asked President Obama or his press spokesperson about it. Helen Thomas was the last American reporter sufficiently brave to ask such a question, and she was exterminated by the Israel Lobby.

In America we have reached the point where anyone who tells the truth is dismissed as a “conspiracy theorist” and marginalized. Recently, a professor of nano-chemistry from the University of Copenhagen made a lecture tour of major Canadian universities explaining the research, conducted by himself and a team of physicists and engineers, that resulted in finding small particles of unreacted nano-thermite in dust samples from the wreckage of the World Trade Center towers, in addition to other evidence that the professor and the research team regard as conclusive scientific proof that the towers were brought down by controlled demolition.

No American university dared to invite him, and as far as I know, no mention of the explosive research report has ever appeared in the American press.

I find it astonishing that 1,500 architects and engineers, who actually know something about buildings, their construction, their strength and weaknesses, and who have repeatedly requested a real investigation of the destruction of the three WTC buildings, are regarded as conspiracy kooks by people who know nothing whatsoever about architecture or engineering or buildings. The same goes for the large number of pilots who question the flight maneuvers carried out during the attacks, and the surviving firemen and “first responders” who report both hearing and personally experiencing explosions in the towers, some of which occurred in sub-basements.

A large number of high-ranking political figures abroad don’t believe a word of the official 9/11 story. For example, the former president of Italy and dean of the Italian Senate, told Italy’s oldest newspaper, Corriere delia Sera, that the intelligence services of Europe “know well that the disastrous (9/11) attack has been planned and realized by the American CIA and the (Israeli) Mossad . . . in order to put under accusation the Arabic Countries and in order to induce the western powers to take part in (the invasions).”

Even people who report that there are dissenting views, as I have done, are branded conspiracy theorists and banned from the media. This extends into the Internet in addition to newspapers and TV. Not long ago a reporter for the Internet site, The Huffington Post, discovered that Pat Buchanan and I are critics of the Iraq and Afghanistan invasions. He was fascinated that there were some Reagan administration officials who dissented from the Republican Party’s war position and asked to interview me.

After he posted the interview on The Huffington Post, someone told him that I was not sound on 9/11. In a panic the reporter contacted me, demanding to know if I disbelieved the official 9/11 story. I replied that being neither architect, engineer, physicist, chemist, pilot, nor firefighter, I had little to contribute to understanding the event, but that I had reported that various experts had raised questions.

The reporter was terrified that he might somehow have given a 9/11 skeptic credibility and be fired for interviewing me about my war views for The Huffington Post. He quickly added at the beginning and, if memory serves, ending of the posted interview words to the effect that my lack of soundness on 9/11 meant that my views on the wars could be disregarded. If only he had known that I was unsure about the official 9/11 story, there would have been no interview.

One doesn’t have to be a scientist, architect, engineer, pilot or firefighter to notice astonishing anomalies in the 9/11 story. Assume that the official story is correct and that a band of terrorists outwitted not only the CIA and FBI, but also all 16 US intelligence agencies and those of our NATO allies and Israel’s notorious Mossad, along with the National Security Council, NORAD, air traffic control and airport security four times in one hour on the same morning. Accept that this group of terrorists pulled off a feat worthy of a James Bond movie and delivered a humiliating blow to the world’s only superpower.

If something like this really happened, would not the president, the Congress, and the media be demanding to know how such an improbable thing could have happened? Investigation and accountability would be the order of the day. Yet President Bush and Vice President Cheney resisted the pleas and demands for an investigation from the 9/11 families for one year, or was it two, before finally appointing a non-expert committee of politicians to listen to whatever the government chose to tell them. One of the politicians resigned from the commission on the grounds that “the fix is in.”

Even the two chairmen and the chief legal counsel of the 9/11 Commission wrote books in which they stated that they believe that members of the military and other parts of the government lied to the commission and that the commission considered referring the matter for investigation and prosecution.

Thomas Kean, chairman of the 9/11 Commission, said: “FAA and NORAD officials advanced an account of 9/11 that was untrue . . . We, to this day don’t know why NORAD told us what they told us . . . It was just so far from the truth.”

Vice Chairman Lee Hamilton said: “We had a very short time frame . . . we did not have enough money . . . We had a lot of people strongly opposed to what we did. We had a lot of trouble getting access to documents and to people. . . . So there were all kinds of reasons we thought we were set up to fail.”

As far as I know, not a single member of the government or the media made an issue of why the military would lie to the commission. This is another anomaly for which we have no explanation.

The greatest puzzle is the conclusion drawn by a national audience from watching on their TV screens the collapse of the WTC towers. Most seem satisfied that the towers fell down as a result of structural damage inflicted by the airliners and from limited, low-temperature fires. Yet what the images show is not buildings falling down, but buildings blowing up. Buildings that are destroyed by fires and structural damage do not disintegrate in 10 seconds or less into fine dust with massive steel beams sliced at each floor level by high temperatures that building fires cannot attain. It has never happened, and it never will.

Conduct an experiment. Free your mind of the programmed explanation of the towers’ destruction and try to discern what your eyes are telling you as you watch the videos of the towers that are available online. Is that the way buildings fall down from damage, or is that the way buildings are brought down by explosives? Little doubt, many Americans prefer the official story to the implications that follow from concluding that the official story is untrue.

If reports are correct, the U.S. government has gone into the business of managing the public’s perceptions of news and events. Apparently, the Pentagon has implemented Perception Management Psychological Operations. There are also reports that the State Department and other government agencies use Facebook and Twitter to stir up problems for the Syrian, Iranian, Russian, Chinese, and Venezuela governments in efforts to unseat governments not controlled by Washington. In addition, there are reports that both governments and private organizations employ “trolls” to surf the Internet and to attempt to discredit in blogs and comment sections reports and writers who are out of step with their interests. I believe I have encountered trolls myself.

In addition to managing our perceptions, much is simply never reported. On May 19, 2011, the fourteen-decade-old British newspaper, The Statesman, reported that the Press Trust of India has reported that the Chinese government has warned Washington “in unequivocal terms that any attack on Pakistan would be construed as an attack on China,” and advised the U.S. government “to respect Pakistan’s sovereignty.”

As trends forecaster Gerald Celente and I have warned, the warmongers in Washington are driving the world toward World War III. Once a country is captured by its military/security complex, the demand for profit drives the country deeper into war. Perhaps this news report from India is a hoax, or perhaps the never-diligent mainstream media will catch up with the news tomorrow, but so far this extraordinary warning from China has not been reported in the U.S. media. (I had it posted on OEN.)

The mainstream media and a significant portion of the Internet are content for our perceptions to be managed by psy-ops and by non-reporting. This is why I wrote not long ago that today Americans are living in George Orwell’s 1984.

Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Treasury, associate editor of the Wall Street Journal, a member of the congressional staff, and held academic appointments at Stanford University, Georgetown University, VirginiaTech, Tulane University, George Mason University, and the University of New Mexico.

Bitter memories of Hawal massacre still haunt survivors

Srinagar, May 22 In disputed state of Kashmir, the bitter memories of Hawal massacre still haunt the families who lost their loved ones despite the passage of two decades, reports Kashmir Media Service.

Over 67 innocent Kashmiris were killed on May 21, 1990, by Indian Border Security Force (BSF) personnel when they resorted to firing on the funeral procession of prominent liberation leader, Mirwaiz Moulvi Muhammad Farooq who was assassinated by unidentified gunmen at his residence in Srinagar.

Recalling the fateful day, Ghulam Qadeer Beig, an eyewitness of the carnage, said that after firing on the funeral procession the BSF personnel started entering houses and shooting people from point blank range. “We were helpless and at the mercy of those who had come to kill us. My brother-in-law, Farooq Ahmad Beig, and my son, who was just ten years old then, were among the killed in the carnage,” he added.

He said that later they went to the Nowhatta Police Station and lodged a complaint against the troopers. “One of the BSF trooper’s cap fell in our home. The name inscribed on it was Pokhla. The authorities have taken no tangible action against the guilty trooper despite our complaint,” he deplored.

Qadeer’s wife, Parvaiza said, “My brother was one among the people killed that day. He was participating in the funeral procession of Mirwaiz Moulvi Muhammad Farooq. He was just paying his respects to a dead man.” Recounting the events of the day, she said that on hearing gunshots, many people ran and hid themselves in a neighbour’s house and she was one of them.

Makhta Begum, 60, mother of Abdul Farooq who was killed by the troopers on the day, said, “The troops came and snatched my son from my arms. The troopers followed Farooq Ahmad right from the procession to his house and killed him.”

Pakistan test fires nuclear-capable Babur cruise missile

By Johan Simth

Islamabad, April 29: Pakistan test fired nuclear-capable Babur (Hatf-7) cruise missile with a range of 600 km that can hit targets in India.

The test of the indigenous-developed missile was “part of a process of validating the system,” said a statement issued by the Inter-Services Public Relations. The statement did not mention where the test was conducted.

The successful test of Hatf-7 or Babur cruise missile was witnessed by Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee Chairman Gen Khalid Shamim Wynne, who said the launch would “go a long way in consolidating Pakistan’s strategic deterrence capability and further strengthening national security.”

“Pakistan’s resolve and commitment to continue its strategic program will remain paramount,” he said.

The test was “warmly appreciated by the President and Prime Minister,” who congratulated the scientists and engineers on their success, the statement said.

The Director General of the Strategic Plans Division, Lt Gen (Retd) Khalid Ahmed Kidwai, Army Strategic Force Command chief Lt Gen Jamil Haider, senior officers from the military and strategic organizations, scientists and engineers also witnessed the test.

The Babur can carry strategic or conventional warheads and has stealth capabilities, the statement said.

It is a “low flying, terrain-hugging missile with high maneuverability, pin-point accuracy and radar avoidance features.”

The missile also incorporates modern cruise missile technology of terrain contour matching (TERCOM) and digital scene matching and area co-relation (DSMAC), the statement said.

Kashmiri Pandits, Hindus in Kashmir, Pakistan, India, UAE, KAS

Return to your homeland: Geelani tells migrant Pandits
Quotes Mahabarata, Says Kashmir struggle Based On Principles

Vesu (Kulgam), Apr 17: The Hurriyat Conference (G) Chairman Syed Ali Geelani Sunday reiterated that the Kashmiri migrant Pandits were an inseparable part of his body and made a passionate appeal to them to return to their homeland and live in harmony with the Muslim brothers and sisters, reports KHALID GUL in Greater Kashmir.

 Addressing a gathering of Kashmiri Pandits at Migrant Pandit’s colony in this south Kashmir district, Geelani assured them of complete protection if they return “You are a part of our body. I assure you that you will be fully protected. We will make sure that no harm is done to your lives and property,” Geelani told the Pandits.

He rejected the idea of setting up “safety zones” for them. “This gives a sense of divide between the Muslims and the Hindus,” Geelani said. “When I was released after two years from jail in 1992, I made it clear that the Pandit brothers are a part of our great heritage and we have to live in coexistence under all circumstances. I reject the idea of creating safe zones for the Pandit community. This gives a sense of divide between the two communities.”

Geelani told the gathering that “you must appeal to the government to allow you to return to your original places in villages, towns and cities. We have centuries old traditions of sharing each others’ joys and sorrows. Those traditions are dear to us and have to be reestablished. We have to strengthen our bonds.”

Geelani alleged that it is the state government that, for its own interest, wants to divide the Kashmiri nation on the basis of religion. “The divide and rule is its well thought out policy. I don’t want you to put up in the separate colonies in the name of safe zones where your privacy is at stake. With the help of God and on behalf of the 90 percent Muslim majority in Kashmir, I assure you that your temples, lives, property and honor would be protected by us as you return to your original homes,” he told the members of the Pandit community. “You are not the migrants but the real citizens of this land. None of you will face any harm from your Muslim brothers. I assure you that.”

Referring to Holy Quran, Geelani said: “Allah does not discriminate between human beings on the basis of religion, caste, color, creed, wealth or poverty, rural or urban origin. Every individual is a human being first and the caste is only for his identification. To be a good human being one must have a good character,” Geelani said.

Asserting that the freedom struggle of Kashmir was based on principles, Geelani said: “Our fight with India is not because it is a Hindu majority country. It is the battle of principles. We are fighting for our rights and the promises that were made to us must be kept.”

He said peace cannot be achieved at gunpoint, but had to be established through justice alone.
 “On one hand government talks of peace and at the same time books minors under the Public Safety Act and detains them in Jammu jails,” he said

He said the people of Kashmir are not being provided a space to even peacefully raise their voice against “the state oppression.” “Since 2010 I have been confined to my house by the police and it has been only last Friday that I was allowed to offer Friday prayers in a local Masjid,” Geelani said.

He said history was testimony to the fact that truth has always prevailed in its battle with might. He urged the Pandit community to feel the pain of their Muslim brethren.

“Our peaceful protests are showered with bullets. The forces do not even spare 10-year-old.  We are not carrying weapons in our hands but are peacefully demanding our rights like India did when it was under the British occupation,” Geelani said. “The troops have occupied more than 28 lakh kanals of land including that of forests in Kashmir which is not only the property of Kashmiri Muslims but Pandits too. Our natural resources are being exploited. The government and the forces are looting the green gold.  The power that we generate is being sold outside while we are being denied even our own share.”

Geelani said that even the temples are now in the custody of non-state subjects instead of the Kashmiri Pandits.

Earlier, National Youth president of Lok Jan Shakti Party (LJP) and the patron of the Kashmir Pandit Amity Council, Sanjay Saraf accorded a warm welcome to the veteran leader.

“Geelani sahib is the only leader who always advocates return of Kashmiri Pandits. The Pandits who are here have not returned on the assurances of state government but only because of the assurance of Geelani sahib and majority community,” Saraf said.

PTI ADDS
Taking out a leaf from the Mahabharata, Geelani narrated the famous conversation between Arjuna and Lord Krishna when Pandavas were taking on the Kaurvas.

 “When Arjuna faltered in the fight against Kaurvas, Maharaj Krishna told him that it was a battle based on principles. You have to fight even own brothers for principles,” Geelani said while asserting that his struggle was based on principles.

When Geelani left the camp, the villagers gathered around him shouting pro-freedom slogans and forced him to lead the Zuhar prayers in the local Jamia. After the prayers Geelani addressed the people outside the mosque too.

Later, Syed Ali Shah Geelani visited another migrant camp at Mattan in Islamabad (Anantnag) district where he too was accorded a warm welcome. He interacted with many Pandit youth and assured them full protection.

Geelani also visited the houses of some of the youth of Islamabad (Anantnag) town who were killed in the last year’s summer unrest. He visited the houses of Sujat-ul-Islam, Ishtiyaq Ahmad Khanday, Irshad Ahmad Latoo, Irshad Parray, Noor-ul-Amin Dagga, Bilal Najar and Rajoo Nath. The youth who had gathered outside shouted pro-freedom and pro-Geelani slogans. He was also accompanied by the party spokesperson, Ayaz Akbar